Skip to main content
Glama

cerberus-index

by com.cerberusindex

check_xrpl_token

Live safety verdict for an XRPL token: clawback & global-freeze hard rejects, issuer blackhole status (can supply ever be re-minted?), NoFreeze, pool depth & trading fee, LP-burn fraction (is liquidity locked?), plus Cerberus's proprietary rug blocklist & detection history. Verdicts: unsafe | caution | likely_safe | unknown, with reasons. currency may be a 3-char or 40-char hex code. Price: $0.005 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it. Pass attest=true to also get an Ed25519-SIGNED attestation of this verdict — portable proof you can log, hand to a counterparty, or verify later with verify_attestation (free) or the published key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attestNo
issuerYes
currencyYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses multiple behavioral aspects: live verdict, specific checks (clawback, freeze, blackhole, etc.), verdict categories, attestation signing, price, and currency format. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it does well but omits rate limits or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise for the information density, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slight restructuring (e.g., grouping cost and feedback) could improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values (verdict categories with reasons) and mentions attestation output. It also covers cost, feedback mechanism, and attest option, making it fairly complete for a 3-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: clarifies 'currency' can be 3-char or 40-char hex, explains 'attest' boolean and its effect. 'issuer' is not further detailed, but context implies it's the token issuer address. Overall, the description compensates well for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Live safety verdict for an XRPL token') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_issuer_reputation' (reputation vs safety) and 'verify_attestation' (verification vs generation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly mentions cost ($0.005 USDC), alternative paths (submit_feedback for missing features, verify_attestation for verification), and the optional attest parameter. However, it does not directly contrast with all sibling tools (e.g., check_address, check_transaction).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All cerberus-index toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.

Resources